Talk:Bondage (BDSM)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bold text==TV shows: ReBoot reference== As a person who watched that series from its premiere to its completion, I can tell you that Megabyte and Hexadecimal were siblings (brother and sister respectively), the two halves of a more powerful virus. As such Megabyte was suave, calculating and cultured (the brains) while the unpredictable and unstable Hexademical personified chaos (the brawn). The siblings shared a strong rivalry and deep-rooted hatred for each other, and if Megabyte captured Hexadecimal it was usually to make use of the considerable power at her disposal. Comparisions to bondage are likely in the restraints used to ensure Hexadecimal didn't unleash her rage on her brother or his forces at a crucial moment (usually when the heroes arrived to save the day), and not for anything incestual. In short: They really shouldn't be here for the reasons given above, so could we please remove that reference? -- 74.12.132.119 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan of ReBoot too, and I can understand what you mean. I changed it, although I'm a beginner at Wikipedia!

Contents 1 Statistics 2 Japanese 3 Links 4 Is this relevant? 5 NPOV 6 History 7 Fusion Bondage 8 John Mellencamp song 9 Pictures 10 Mess 11 Separate Article Required?

[edit] Statistics

"Studies in the U.S. have shown that about a half of all men find the idea of bondage to be erotic; many women do as well." - any actual stats for women? Crab

[edit] Japanese

Is anyone here kinky and speaks Japanese, who could confirm or correct the Japanese bondage entries here, and perhaps even add some Unicode for their original Japanese names?

[edit] Links

Added http://www.seriousbondage.com/ - this is a good non-commercial site. Please don't remove it. Dlloyd 09:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Serious bondage might be a good link, but not here, rather more appropriately placed on the BDSM page.

[edit] Is this relevant?

I've noticed this recent addition.

".... The basic style depends on the type of fantasy being played out, here a few examples: Rape Fantasy: The top fictitiously abducts the consenting bottom and has complete control to do what he/she pleases. Domination/Slavery: A training session occurs in which rewards for obediance and punishment for defiance are given. Humilation is usually involved. Predicament Bondage: The bottom is given a choice between two tortures. For example, caning on the rear or flogging on the chest. If the bottom cannot stand one any longer, the top will start the other. This can also be done mechanically, like having a bottom squat and rigging a crotch rope to tighten if they attempt to stand. ...."

To me it doesn't seem relevent as they describe other BSDM activites not neccisarily related to Bondage as an activity. It seems to me that someone has simply added thier own fantasies to the existing entry.

You are entirely correct, IMHO, this paragraph does not belong under bondage, and perhaps not under BDSM either. This is a dictionary to consult for information, not to go into specific scenarious.

[edit] NPOV

I'm tempted to call lack of NPOV of this article, mostly because in my experiences, bondage is not necessarily sexual. It easily can be, and is a fairly intimate act, like sex, so there is a strong sexual connotation in some cases, but it easily does not have to be sexual.

I've renamed the article, from "sexual bondage" to "bondage (BDSM)" to reflect this. Does that help? -- The Anome 08:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

That it does, thanks. Sdr 6 July 2005 18:40 (UTC)

[edit] History

Bondage must be older than this article claims. see works by Jacques-André Boiffard from the 1930s.

I find it a bit odd that those Ann Rice books are named as "early examples" of bondage; they're not very old at all!

A serious history of bondage requires in-depth presentation of some people who are surprisingly absent from the article. Three which readily come to mind:

• Irving Klaw
• John Willie (and the entire Sweet Gwendolyne series of stories)
• Eric Stanton

"Effie Elisa Ross" is not a homo-erotic BDSM poet, her name was placed on this page originally as a prank. However, I have attempted to remove it many times, and my edit is ignored and the page is reverted back, despite the fact that I had just legitimately fixed a malicious edit.

erm, there are some really anchient japanese pics but as i couldnt find them again i havent added them here :(, and not sure about the context a they may have not been consensual and therefor just rape (i think bdsm implies consensual fun, for me anyway)

[edit] Fusion Bondage

The page Fusion Bondage was created, but there seems not to be much info on it. A Google search only returns 329 instances of the term. I propose that this subject might better exist as a part of the main Bondage article. Vslashg (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I disagree with the comment above... Fusion Bondage like Shibari is its own artistic branch of rope bondage. The link to Bondage (BDSM) provides clarity for readers looking for more information on the general subject of Bondage. However, that said, Bondage (BDSM) is written like a clinical treatise on the subject --- not an indebt objective artistic and sensual evolution of its elements. It lumps rope bondage into a general "catch all", a fact that limits objective evaluation of Fusion Bondage.

One issue is whether "Fusion Bondage" is notable enough to warrant a separate article, or whether it only really merits a brief mention in a more general article (such as this one). vslashg is presumably arguing the latter based on Google search hits, and the argument seems fair enough to me. Remember, Wikipedia is not a place to promote new ideas that haven't really attained any independent notability yet. — Matt Crypto 17:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems a little nonsensical to me to require that Fusion Bondage be a chapter in the Bondage (BDSM) article, but have no reference at all to it in the Rope Bondage article, since it fits in both categories. M.S.K. 19:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Mellencamp song

I removed this paragraph

The popular song, "Hurts So Good", by John Mellencamp featured lyrics saying, "Come on baby make it hurt so good. Sometimes love don't feel like it should, so make it hurt so good."

since it seems to refer to S/M rather than bondage as such. Pretzelpaws 06:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I think that one picture should be of a man in bondage, especially because the article emphasises that many men fantasise about being tied up during sex. I don't have any - anyone who can help out?

I have one but I do not know how to put it on there. Starcomet 21:58 September 24, 2006 (UCT)

• I agree, I found a free image of a man on Commons and added it to the article. Johntex\^talk 19:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mess

Most of the songs, facts etc refer to BDSM not to bondage. Most facts related to BDSM are true for bondage too. This doesn't mean it also has to be the other way around as well. Therefore I believe only facts distiguishing bondage should be statet here... everything else should be put under BDSM. Subsidiarity --84.152.231.17 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. I actually put many of the music ref's here, and then copied to BDSM. When I get a chance, or others do, your idea of trimming these to more bondage specific music links would be great. Atom 23:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Article Required?

I think we need somebody in the know to write another separate article dealing with 'loving' bondage, rather than bondage used within Dom/Sadomasochism. There's a huge gulf between strapping a willing victim up for a good lashing, and tying your beloved up in silk to give her something to pull against and stop her wiggling out of the room while you are pleasuring her. My wife and me have played this way over the years, but we need someone like Taxwoman to write a proper page :-) 160.84.253.241 09:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Me again. In fact, after reading the 'Couples and Bondage' paragraph, and the 'BDSM' page, it strikes me the vast majority of people that play with bondage are probably in no way connected to BDSM at all, but are otherwise - "vanilla" couples who sometimes use mild forms of bondage as part of normal sex play as a 'sensation intensifier'. Why has this 'Bondage' page been hijacked by the BDSM community, when (I imagine) most bondage that will happen in the world tonight has absolutely nothing to do with Domination, Sadism, or Masochism?. 160.84.253.241 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you are learning more about our sub-culture. Actually BDSM has grown over the years to basically be a term that is used to cover the whole spectrum of what some would call "kinky" activity. Not all, in fact most BDSM'ers are not at the end of the spectrum, what one might call "heavy players". Many are couples whose children are older, or out of the house who are exploring their sexuality again, and try out a little light bondage or D/s play.

In response to your added comment, the bondage page is pretty accurate according to my view. I'm not sure what you mean that it has been hijacked by the BDSM community. Light bondage and spanking is part of the BDSM spectrum.

BTW, please don't use silk to tie up your sweatheart, as silk can be very hard to untie in an emergency. Atom 12:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Sorry for using the word 'hijacked'...it's the wrong word. I suppose there are a million different views about where the border is between 'bondage within vanilla', and BDSM.

Personally I don't tie my beloved up to dominate her, but because she looks nice like that, and she finds working against the ties feels good when she can feel a mattress-ripper coming on :-). We have no interest at all in the 'DSM' part of 'BDSM', so maybe we just need to change our definition of 'vanilla' to include light bondage (I think that most 'vanilla' couples are a lot more adventurous than people think anyway, they just keep it between the two of them behind the closed bedroom door).

I won't be a pest by calling a vote or anything, I just want to canvass opinion. Am I the only one who thinks that bondage as used within relationships by more adventurous 'vanilla' couples, and bondage as used in its own right as part of BDSM culture are such different things that they merit two separate (but cross-referred) articles ???

160.84.253.241 16:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have great sympathy with our anonymous friend, and am flattered that he thinks that I am the one to write a proper page. The trouble is that really, it's a multi-faceted continuum, not a simple either/or. Would the cabal who run Wikipedia really stand for having lots of separate articles called "Light bondage in vanilla sex", "Bondage without domination", "Stringent bondage without SM"? They'd soon be deleted or merged.--Taxwoman 20:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to our truly beautiful friend (we've seen the photos!). I see what you mean. There seems to be a 'raincoat brigade' who try to slant all 'sexuality' articles to extremes and personal agendas at the expense of the 'centre' (??). For example have you seen the meagre page for 'Vanilla Sex'?...'Er and Me consider ourselves 'Vanilla', but if our sex life was as mind-numbingly dull as described there, we would have jumped off Beachy Head together long before now :-) (e.g. see my wife's re-write of the article on 'Orgasm Control'). Many vanilla couples explore other things without ever becoming part of the relevant sub-culture, so in addition to vanilla bondage, we have over time also had a vanilla foursome without becoming swingers, and we must keep Duracell in profit with our vanilla use of various things that go buzz in the night, whilst still remaining 'vanilla'. I still feel that the article should simply be called 'Bondage (Sexual)' which starts with plain Bondage, but then derects you onwards to BDSM if you want to delve deeper, but I'll go with the flow. Perhaps we will attempt a re-write of the 'Couples and Bondage' section, which again seems very meagre given the percentage of the population that are probably 'at it'. (BTW I'm not being anonymous for any sinister reason, but my real user name is my actual name :-) L&BWs 160.84.253.241 08:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)